The Sons of God and the Nephilim—Part 4

Posted on by November 5, 2011
13

The cover of the first book in L.A. Marzulli's fiction trilogy centered around the Nephilim. See www.lamarzulli.net for more details.

[As of 11/5/11 my thesis is now available in print or for Amazon Kindle.] The first post in this series briefly summarized the various positions on the Sons of God and the Nephilim and I shared my thesis statement on this topic. The second post critiqued the Sethite position while the third post offered a critique of the Royalty view. In this fourth post, I will lay out some of the strengths of the Fallen Angel view. In fact, the next few posts on this topic will cover the Fallen Angel position. It has the greatest textual support, but it also has the most objections to address. So if I don’t cover a particular issue in this post, please be patient. I will probably get to it in a future post.

The Fallen Angel position is the most popular theory concerning the identity of the sons of God. This is clearly the earliest position that we know of. It was promoted in apocryphal works written before the time of Christ and by every church father who commented on it until the 3rd century. Here again is the key passage from Genesis:

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1–4, NASB)

The Fallen Angel view proposes that the “sons of God” (verses 2, 4) were fallen angels who materialized (probably as humans), married women, and sired children by them. The offspring of these unions were “the mighty men who were of old, men of renown” (v. 4). Most intepreters believe that the Nephilim were the offspring, but some argue that they were already on the earth when these marriages took place. A derivative of this view is that these fallen angels possessed men who then had children. Many modern scholars hold to this derivative view, and I believe it is a possibility. However, the text does not say that they possessed men to do this, so before accepting this position, I think it is wise to see if the ancient view can stand up to the various objections.

Although the Fallen Angel view is repulsive to most, it is important to understand what the text actually states. The term “sons of God” is from the Hebrew bene ha ‘elohim. This particular term is only used three other times in Scripture and in each case, it clearly refers to heavenly beings. Here are the three passages—all from the Book of Job.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. (Job 1:6)

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD. (Job 2:1)

[Job, where were you] when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7)

In each of these verses, the term “sons of God” definitely refers to heavenly beings of some sort. Why should we interpret this term any differently in Genesis 6? While there are a handful of similar Hebrew phrases used in Scripture, these are the only four passages that mention this specific term. The closest any other passage comes is from a Dead Sea Scroll manuscript of Deuteronomy which uses bene ‘elohim in Deuteronomy 32:8, which I believe should also be translated as “sons of God” as the ESV has it. Most other translations were completed before this document was well-known and so they translated this verse with “sons of Israel.” While this is what the more recent manuscripts state, this wording makes little sense of the context.

Three New Testament passages also seem to support this position. 1 Peter 3:19–20 speaks of a particular group of “spirits in prison” (probably angels) who sinned during the days of Noah. 2 Peter 2:4 mentions angels who sinned and are currently held in “chains of darkness” and reserved for judgment. The surrounding context of this verse speaks of the wickedness that existed before the Flood and at Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude 6 refers to “angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, [God] has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.” The surrounding context of this passage also discusses the wickedness and sexual immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah.

So these three New Testament passages refer to angels who sinned during the days of Noah and are now being held in chains (prison) until the day of judgment. If Genesis 6 speaks of fallen angels, then these three verses make perfect sense. However, if the “sons of God” of Genesis 6 refer to certain groups of men, then we really have no idea what these passages in the New Testament are about. While these verses should not be seen as a watertight argument for the Fallen Angel position, they do give strong support to it.

The short book of Jude offers another interesting tidbit in relation to this subject. Verses 14–15 states, “Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them…” This quotation does not appear in the Old Testament, but is from the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Jude’s quote of this book does not mean we should view Enoch as part of the canon. However, it does mean that this particular statement from Enoch is inspired, and it also shows that Jude was quite familiar with the Book of Enoch. Why is this important? Because the Book of Enoch also promotes the Fallen Angel position (this will be examined in a future post). Since Jude was familiar with Enoch, and he also wrote about angels who sinned and are being held in chains until the day of judgment, then it is extremely likely that he had the Fallen Angel view in mind when he wrote.

There is much more to discuss on this issue. There are other arguments that will be raised to support this position and, there are many objections that need to be addressed. In the next post, I plan to provide some more of the strengths. The objections will also be addressed in a future post.

 

Q & A Series: Why Are Many Atheists So Afraid of Creationists?

Posted on by November 24, 2011
13

This question will undoubtedly be mocked by many atheists and skeptics, but this only supports the point I want to make in this post. As many readers of this blog know, I work at Answers in Genesis so I routinely hear about some of the numerous attacks upon that ministry (and other creationists ministries) from some very vocal atheists and skeptics. They ridicule and mock us for our beliefs, but why do they do this?

Think about this for a few minutes. Atheism is a belief system that has absolutely no arguments going for it. The two most popular “proofs” of atheism do not actually support or prove it at all. Let’s look briefly at these two “proofs” for this godless belief system.

The first major argument used by many atheists to support their view is evolution. Besides the fact that evolution (in the molecules-to-man sense where one kind of animal evolves into another kind) has never been observed and we know that it cannot happen, atheists tout this so-called science to promote their view. Evolution supposedly happened in the past and therefore is not qualified to be part of operational science (like chemistry, physics, etc.). Instead, it falls under the category of “historical science” wherein the researcher makes educated guesses about the past. Now, the best place to learn about our history is from a reliable historical record, which is exactly what Christians have in the Bible. But the evolutionist does not have a written record of past events to support their view. Instead, they must interpret data from rock layers, the solar system, etc., and make educated guess (based on the false philosophy of uniformitarianism) about what they think happened in the past. (Note: it is unlikely that an evolutionist will ever acknowledge the two different kinds of science mentioned, because as soon as they grant that point, they lose the debate.)

Now we could debate all day long about whether they are right or wrong, but here’s my point. Even if evolution could be shown to be true (which it can’t), it doesn’t prove atheism at all. It certainly doesn’t match what the Bible teaches, but there are millions of people who believe in some form of theistic evolution. That is, they believe God or a god used evolutionary processes to create this world. So as it turns out, evolution doesn’t prove atheism. It is simply used in an effort to attack Christianity (and, at times, some other faiths), which is really the agenda of many of these skeptics and atheists in the first place.

The second greatest “proof” of atheism is the so-called problem of evil. Bible-believing Christians have the answer to this question. In fact, we are the only ones who can answer this problem appropriately, as I demonstrate in my book, God and Cancer: Finding Hope in the Midst of Life’s Trials.

But here is the problem for the atheist. If they are right that God does not exist, then who defines what is good or evil? For the atheist, there really is no such thing as good or evil, since everything just is. It is neither good or bad, right or wrong, good or evil. It just exists. Furthermore, everyone (or each society) gets to decide right or wrong for himself. So what may be viewed as evil by one atheist may be seen as good by another. Worse yet, if atheism were true, then we would simply be a collection of chemicals that, by a blind stroke of luck, came together in just the right way. But if that is true, then our decisions are actually not decisions at all. They are determined by the chemical reactions in our brains and man has no free will.

So, if the atheist were to be consistent, they would stop trying to convince others that Christianity is wrong. After all, if atheism were true, then man has no free will, and Christians would be Christians because they have to be. That’s what the chemical reactions in our brains have forced us to be.

If you think about it, a person who is really an atheist should have a “live and let live” mentality toward others, since each person gets to decide truth for himself or herself. There are some atheists out there who are friendly, like S. E. Cupp. But the so-called New Atheists, like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, P.Z. Myers, and their ilk are very aggressive in promoting their agenda, which often includes mocking Christians, especially those who believe the creation account in Genesis. See my earlier article entitled “Leading Atheists Display Their Bias” for another example of their hypocrisy.

The "Reverend" Barry Lynn repeatedly lies about the Ark Encounter project in Kentucky and irreverently mocks Christianity and the Bible. Is this sort of behavior consistent with being a reverend?

Recently, the “Reverend” Barry Lynn from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, posted a video in which he appeals for funding so they can continue their “education and legal programs.” Here is a link to another blog which shows the video and critiques it. Yet throughout the video Lynn repeatedly lies about the biblical account of the Ark and the upcoming Ark Encounter project. He knows full well that tax payers are not funding the Ark project, yet he continues to irreverently lie through his teeth about it. This is the same guy whose group filed a lawsuit to stop ministries from sharing the Gospel in certain prisons. What kind of “reverend” would sue to stop people from sharing the Gospel? Barry Lynn is a wolf in sheep’s clothing (see Matthew 7:15). I don’t know if he thinks he is actually an atheist, but he seems to always agree with atheists against Christianity. So if the shoe fits…

Why do people like Barry Lynn resort to mockery and lies? If they are the ones that supposedly have the truth on their side, then why are they so afraid to let the public hear the facts? Many of these people are the same ones who filed lawsuits in their vain efforts to keep the Creation Museum from being built in Kentucky. Since nearly every major U.S. city has publicly funded museums touting their evolutionary religion, why are they so afraid of one privately funded Creation Museum? Why is Barry Lynn so determined to lie about the Ark Encounter project, not only in this appeal for funding video, but he also lied about it in a debate with Ken Ham on Anderson Cooper’s show on CNN.

The answer is obvious. Barry Lynn and the New Atheists know the truth. Deep down, they know God exists. That’s why they spend so much time railing against Him. If they truly believed He wasn’t real, then they wouldn’t worry so much about Him. They are trying desperately to justify their professed unbelief. They are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, just like Romans 1:18 talks about. And, just like Romans 1:22 states, “Professing to be wise, they became fools.” Psalm 14:1 is also clear, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.'” That is what the Bible says about people who deny God, because they are rejecting what they know to be true.

Christians need to pray for these people and help others who buy into their nonsense to see the truth. We also need to trust God from the very beginning of His Word, speak the truth in love, and model godly behavior in an ungodly world. Let’s make sure that if the atheist is going to reject God, it is because the message of the Cross offends them (1 Corinthians 1:18), not the messenger.

Thanks for reading.